Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

Forgive my returning to the essence of the OP..............again. Debate seems to have shifted to our neighbouring galaxy.

Russia's intervention in Syria (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is supported by International Law. As often referenced.

Russia's intervention in the Ukraine (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is condemned by International Law.

You simply cannot advocate one and reject the other if you are a supporter of said law, without obviously being a bleedin' hypocrite (Heaven forbid!).



Absolutely nothing at all to do with anybody else. America, Monglia, Mars.

Dead simple. Is International Law acceptable in both cases - or is it not?

Once again you side step having to reply to questions arising from your post.

Does International Law apply to both? You of course mean to the RF and the US equally? It certainly should do but it doesn't! I have listed the events that led up to this as yet undisclosed breach of International Law, all of them breaches of the very law's that you would apply to Russia ..... and you ignore them but are prepared to condemn Russia for doing 'something' you don't even know what.

You are still living in the 50-60's and have not yet come to terms with the simple fact that the Russian Federation is not the USSR.

So answer the questions ..... put me right and show me where my views are unacceptable to you? Simple enough .... you have strong views .... so tell us what they are?

[Robin Hood]

Unless there are UN Resolutions placed against Iran and its terrorism sponsoring programs worldwide against Israel (Hezbollah) , then we can never be in any position to go against Israel.

You can't expect to issue UN Resolutions against Israel, whilst letting Iran off the hook and that is the dilemma you face.

Yes, International diplomacy is unfair and perhaps some of you should try looking at things from Israel's position.

there will NEVER be a peace process either or a 2 State Solution with any organisation such as Hamaz and Hezbollah. That should be abundantly VERY clear to you all.

You can bitch and wine all you like, but any Resolution will ALWAYS be blocked unless everyone starts getting serious.

You can't have it both ways and start poking sticks at Israel whilst Hamaz and Hezbollah surround them and continuously attack the State of Israel all the time.

WTF has this garbage got to do with Ukraine .... Russia .... and International Law?

[Paphitis]

Unless there are UN Resolutions placed against Iran and its terrorism sponsoring programs worldwide against Israel (Hezbollah) , then we can never be in any position to go against Israel.

You can't expect to issue UN Resolutions against Israel, whilst letting Iran off the hook and that is the dilemma you face.

Yes, International diplomacy is unfair and perhaps some of you should try looking at things from Israel's position.

there will NEVER be a peace process either or a 2 State Solution with any organisation such as Hamaz and Hezbollah. That should be abundantly VERY clear to you all.

You can bitch and wine all you like, but any Resolution will ALWAYS be blocked unless everyone starts getting serious.

You can't have it both ways and start poking sticks at Israel whilst Hamaz and Hezbollah surround them and continuously attack the State of Israel all the time.

WTF has this garbage got to do with Ukraine .... Russia .... and International Law?

Well it was click trouble with the wrong thread but you couldn't help yourself. it's either that, or you're simply too daft to work it out!

But since you were asking about international law, i refer you to these:

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un ... s/ukraine/

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/at ... 68_262.pdf

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:
You have answered the question ..... you never check content, spelling or grammar before pressing the keys and you do it frequently! I have read both those links as I previously told you .... but I repeat that I doubt you have.

The one thing that makes Russia appear to be acting contrary to international law is the concept that Russia illegally annexed Crimea. You are one who is always spouting on about the right to self defence, the right of self determination and a free democracy. Why did you not apply these deep felt principals to Crimea? The choice in Crimea was made by Crimean’s not Russia, although it was no doubt in Russia’s interest to accede to their request for annexation.

It is only the Wests denial of the recognition of the choice of the people, demonstrated through a free and fair vote, followed by their referendum on annexation (overseen by international observers) that has allowed the annexation of Crimea to be treated as being contrary to International law. And yet you recognised the illegal government that set out on a course of genocide and created the reaction?

Your views can be countered very simply ......... you and LR, are driven more by your indoctrinated hatred of anything Russian, than the application of these humanitarian concerns. You select only Russia when it comes to applying International Law, never breaches committed by Western powers! You are both deeply indoctrinated over decades and nothing will change your perception.


The UN had a vote on a resolution which only three countries out of 173 opposed ............... it is well linked to credible and official documents, reports and sources. You should read it because in deals with reality not the propaganda you so readily soak up:

In a U.N. vote, on November 21st, only three countries — the United States, Ukraine, and Canada — voted against a resolution to condemn racist fascism, or “nazism,” and to condemn denial of Germany’s World War II Holocaust against primarily Jews.

This measure passed the General Assembly, on a vote of 115 in favor, 3 against, and 55 abstentions (the abstentions were in order not to offend U.S. President Obama, who was opposed to the resolution).

The measure had been presented to their General Assembly after a period of more than a decade of rising “neo-Nazi” (i.e., racist-fascist) movements in Europe, including especially in Ukraine, where two Ukrainian nazi parties were installed by the U.S. into high posts in Ukraine’s new government, immediately after the democratically elected Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych was overthrown in a violent coup in Kiev during February of this year.

The entire Ukrainian ‘defense’ establishment was then immediately taken over by the leaders of these two nazi parties, which rabidly hate ethnic Russians, and Ukraine is now led by the first — and so far, the only — nazi government to take charge of any country after the end of WW II. Within less than a mere three months after the coup, this new Government began an ethnic-cleansing program in Ukraine’s own ethnic-Russian southeast, where around 90% of the residents had voted for the man who had been overthrown in the coup — this was a campaign to isolate and exterminate those people, so that those voters could never again participate in a Ukrainian national election. Unless those voters would be eliminated, these nazis would be elected out of power — removed from office.

Ukraine voted no on this resolution because this new Ukrainian Government is the only nazi regime in the world, and they are doing the standard nazi things, and so what they are doing is in violation of numerous international laws, which are not being enforced, but which are re-asserted and re-affirmed in this resolution, though Ukraine and the Ukrainian situation aren’t at all mentioned in the resolution. The United States voted no on it, because the U.S. Government had placed them into power. And Canada voted no on it because their far-right Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has been a virtually unquestioning supporter of all U.S. foreign-policy positions, and wants U.S. President Barack Obama to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to assist the Koch brothers and other large oil giants to profitably transport and sell to Europe and around the world, tar-sands oil from Canada’s landlocked Athabasca region.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/11/u-s-among-3-countries-u-n-officially-backing-nazism-israel-parts-company-germany-abstains.html

I doubt you will read the full report as you have an aversion to any information that does not come from your approved sources. This is why your views are so lacking in credibility ..... you never analyse using various sources, you only ever spout your entrenched view of just one side of the story.

[Paphitis]

No but I am really sorry, but no one has the right to split a country apart.

Otherwise, the Sunnis can have 70% of Syria. The rest to assad. ta!

The people of crimea already have their self determination as they can elect their representatives within the Ukrainian Parliament.

You are all over the place. self determination does not mean splitting or annexation over a sovereign countries territory and in fact that is a precedence that just can't be entertained under International law without the signature of the Ukrainian Government.

I refer you back to the UN Resolutions once again.

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un ... s/ukraine/

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

No but I am really sorry, but no one has the right to split a country apart.

Coming from you that is a joke ..... what about all the rhetoric about how the Kurds would get a slice of Syria ..... and YOU would make sure they did? Wasn’t it you that also spouted all the nonsense about splitting Syria into several independent States? And what about the US/NATO inspired beak up of Yugoslavia? The annexation of Palestine mouthful at a time by Israel? And Isreal's annexation of the Golan Heights? You should try checking your own previous pronouncements before spouting nonsense.

Otherwise, the Sunnis can have 70% of Syria. The rest to assad. ta!

If that is what the Syrians decide .... that is their choice. But it is not a choice that should be imposed on them by a foreign power using a proxy army of terrorists to drive out the elected government and its elected President, to impose what they want!

The people of crimea already have their self determination as they can elect their representatives within the Ukrainian Parliament

.
I didn’t think you would read the article or its links .... way beyond your pay grade obviously! The Ukraine Government, the illegal Nazi one you recognised, threatened and moved to take autonomy away from the Crimean’s, take their lands and property and then drive the ethnic Russians out of the peninsular and the Russians out of Sevastopol! That is what kicked off the trouble’s ..... and the US was a key player in the planning and implementation. This is where YOU conveniently ignore International Law.

You are all over the place. self determination does not mean splitting or annexation over a sovereign countries territory and in fact that is a precedence that just can't be entertained under International law without the signature of the Ukrainian Government.

Unless of course it suits YOUR plans. But there is no Ukraine Government, it is illegal, it came into power by a foreign inspired coup, the election for President excluded all those in Eastern Ukraine, less than 40% got the opportunity to vote ...... it is ALL against International Law.

I refer you back to the UN Resolutions once again

.
I have read it ..... ?

[Londonrake]

Forgive my returning to the essence of the OP..............again. Debate seems to have shifted to our neighbouring galaxy.

Russia's intervention in Syria (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is supported by International Law. As often referenced.

Russia's intervention in the Ukraine (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is condemned by International Law.

You simply cannot advocate one and reject the other if you are a supporter of said law, without obviously being a bleedin' hypocrite (Heaven forbid!).



Absolutely nothing at all to do with anybody else. America, Monglia, Mars.

Dead simple. Is International Law acceptable in both cases - or is it not?

Once again you side step having to reply to questions arising from your post.

Does International Law apply to both? You of course mean to the RF and the US equally? It certainly should do but it doesn't! I have listed the events that led up to this as yet undisclosed breach of International Law, all of them breaches of the very law's that you would apply to Russia ..... and you ignore them but are prepared to condemn Russia for doing 'something' you don't even know what.

You are still living in the 50-60's and have not yet come to terms with the simple fact that the Russian Federation is not the USSR.

So answer the questions ..... put me right and show me where my views are unacceptable to you? Simple enough .... you have strong views .... so tell us what they are?

Forgive my returning to the essence of the OP......... again

You have repeatedly cited International Law as a leading factor in support of Russia's intervention in Syria. I've not argued about that. In fact I'm sure at some point I said that it was probably quite correct.

However, you reject the same Law when it condemns Russian involvement in the Ukraine.

It isn't about me condemning or supporting anybody or my "strong views". It's about flagrant hypocrisy.

You can obfuscate until the cows come home but it really is that simple and I'm pretty sure that most people will see it as such.

BTW. The USSR started to go under in 1989. Not the 50's and 60's.

[Robin Hood]

Forgive my returning to the essence of the OP..............again. Debate seems to have shifted to our neighbouring galaxy.

Russia's intervention in Syria (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is supported by International Law. As often referenced.

Russia's intervention in the Ukraine (whatever the perceived circumstances, for or against) is condemned by International Law.

You simply cannot advocate one and reject the other if you are a supporter of said law, without obviously being a bleedin' hypocrite (Heaven forbid!).



Absolutely nothing at all to do with anybody else. America, Monglia, Mars.

Dead simple. Is International Law acceptable in both cases - or is it not?

Once again you side step having to reply to questions arising from your post.

Does International Law apply to both? You of course mean to the RF and the US equally? It certainly should do but it doesn't! I have listed the events that led up to this as yet undisclosed breach of International Law, all of them breaches of the very law's that you would apply to Russia ..... and you ignore them but are prepared to condemn Russia for doing 'something' you don't even know what.

You are still living in the 50-60's and have not yet come to terms with the simple fact that the Russian Federation is not the USSR.

So answer the questions ..... put me right and show me where my views are unacceptable to you? Simple enough .... you have strong views .... so tell us what they are?

Forgive my returning to the essence of the OP......... again

You have repeatedly cited International Law as a leading factor in support of Russia's intervention in Syria. I've not argued about that. In fact I'm sure at some point I said that it was probably quite correct.

However, you reject the same Law when it condemns Russian involvement in the Ukraine.

It isn't about me condemning or supporting anybody or my "strong views". It's about flagrant hypocrisy.

You can obfuscate until the cows come home but it really is that simple and I'm pretty sure that most people will see it as such.

BTW. The USSR started to go under in 1989. Not the 50's and 60's.

Why do you ignore answering the questions I ask you? I can only assume you have no answers as to why International Law only applies to what Russia is supposed to have done(which so far you have failed to explain) but the US and its allies are exempt. What International Law has Russia breached in Ukraine? Surely an answer to that is not beyond your capability.

The 50-60's were the cold war era where, just like now there was a commie (Russian) under every bed and in every cupboard. That is the period that a would assume you received your military training? Remember you once explained to me how you could not have a military that worked if they all had different concepts and opinions? Think about it .... how do you get them all to sing from the same song sheet?

[Londonrake]

I submitted the OP and pointed out the glaring hypocrisy in the two stances. Since then you've done nothing but twist/turn and obfuscate, rather than acknowledge or explain the inconsistency. The option of leaving it alone was of course ridiculous. If anybody dares post on "your" subjects then they have to be dealt with.

It isn't up to you to challenge me to answer anything when you yourself act in such a manner and I am certainly not going to be dragged into the morass of Syrian or Ukrainian events in this thread. They have their own.

It's dead simple.

You have consistently provided justification under International Law for Russia's involvement in Syria. However, you have consistently rejected the same law, condemning their involvement in the Ukraine.

That's hypocrisy. Pure and simple. You have an abiding penchant for it.

Everything else you're posting here is just chaff and your usual MO, repeatedly bludgeoning somebody into walking away, then claiming it as their being "shot down".

[Robin Hood]

I submitted the OP and pointed out the glaring hypocrisy in the two stances. Since then you've done nothing but twist/turn and obfuscate, rather than acknowledge or explain the inconsistency. The option of leaving it alone was of course ridiculous. If anybody dares post on "your" subjects then they have to be dealt with.

It isn't up to you to challenge me to answer anything when you yourself act in such a manner and I am certainly not going to be dragged into the morass of Syrian or Ukrainian events in this thread. They have their own.

It's dead simple.

You have consistently provided justification under International Law for Russia's involvement in Syria. However, you have consistently rejected the same law, condemning their involvement in the Ukraine.

That's hypocrisy. Pure and simple. You have an abiding penchant for it.

Everything else you're posting here is just chaff and your usual MO, repeatedly bludgeoning somebody into walking away, then claiming it as their being "shot down".

I will try to make it simple for you to understand ...........

Russia is in Syria at the invitation of its elected government ........... that makes their presence legal under International Law.

Russia was in Crimea with the agreement by treaty of the elected Ukraine government ............. that makes their presence legal under International Law.

So ..... they didn't invade!

The Crimea had autonomy and their own elected local government. An unelected anti-Russian and fascist ‘government’ threatened to change the status quo of Crimea and also to renege on the agreement with the elected government for the continuation of Russia’s lease on the naval base in Sevastopol for another 25 years.

This unelected government was not and still is not a legal entity under International Law as it was put into power by a foreign inspired coup d’état. It should not have been recognised under International Law anyway. The people of Ukraine have never voted for this government. This is why they are trying to exterminate the ethnic Russians. Because another election that included those in Eastern Ukraine, including Crimea, will reverse this situation and a pro-Russia government will be the result.

The Russians responded to protect both their own interests legally and to protect the population but in doing so broke the terms of their lease, NOT International Law. The people of Crimea voted by an overwhelming majority to leave Ukraine and by referendum to ask Russia to take them back as an independent state within the Russian Federation. This Russia did ...... and the Russians are therefore in Crimea at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Crimea.

Unlike the illegal presence of US coalition military in Syria, the Russians achieved regime change with the cooperation of the Crimean people and without ANY loss of life or destruction of property or infrastructure. The only refugee problem the Russians had was the thousands of Ukraine forces that decided they were better of laying down their arms and remaining in an independent Crimea.

Now .... just where is this HYPOCRISY you keep spouting about ..... quite frankly I don’t see any!

However, if you start looking at how the International Laws are applied by the ‘exceptional and indispensable’ Western alliance nations under the US umbrella............... well, that’s another story! The hypocrisy cup doth overflow ...... BIG TIME !